[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFD] Automatic suspend
    On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:

    I'm not taking a position on the merit of the wakelocks per se nor
    whether Rafael is right or wrong here, I haven't looked at the problem
    closely enough. I just want to react to this:

    > The basic concept was developed long before android was a public
    > project.

    This isn't going to bring you any good will. We don't care what was done
    before it was a public project. That has strictly no relevance to how it
    should be submitted upstream.

    How long the code has been simmering internally to company X or Y or
    even in a public tree doesn't matter. Some times, yes, we do take
    something as a whole, when it makes no sense to do otherwise (a driver,
    a filesystem, ...).

    But something like what you propose, it seems, could easily be broken
    down into a basic concept, on which features are added one after the
    other, and in this case, it's the right way to go, simply because it's
    easier to argue for the basic concept alone if you don't have to handle
    comments froms people who don't agree with aspect A B or C of the other
    features involved.

    And if the basic concept doesn't get accepted in the first place, then
    the whole point is moot...


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-01 07:37    [W:0.020 / U:17.520 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site